Rinaldi emphasized the urgent need for funding certainty, to ensure everything from effective NextGen implementation to adequate staffing of air traffic controllers.

“Sequestration cut nearly $493 million from the FAA’s operations budget, $142 million from its facilities and equipment budget, and $8.6 million from its research, engineering, and development budget,” Rinaldi testified. “These sequestration cuts were not the result of a research-driven strategy to increase safety and efficiency, but rather for the sole purpose of saving money.”

Sequestration cuts have had many negative effects on the NAS, including massive flight delays that resulted from the FAA being forced to furlough FAA employees, including controllers, in 2013, he noted.

“These funding cuts are problematic and will continue until Congress finds a way to end sequestration,” Rinaldi testified. “Until then, our NAS is in jeopardy of falling behind on efficiency, capacity, and most importantly, safety.”

While NATCA sees many other problems and challenges for the FAA, Rinaldi testified that funding is the primary issue to be addressed with the “utmost urgency.”

“The NAS and the FAA workforce are in a transition period,” Rinaldi testified. “The FAA is working to implement NextGen modernization projects that will deploy new technology and equipment. In order to keep pace with these modernization projects and the rest of the world, the FAA needs to be properly funded and staffed, which can only happen with stable and predictable funding. We all have a stake in this economic engine, which contributes $1.5 trillion annually to our GDP and employs 12 million Americans. Congress, the FAA, and industry will need to work together to ensure that our NAS remains the safest and most efficient airspace in the world.”

Be a better informed pilot.

Join over 110,000 readers each month and get real-world news and information direct to your inbox, each day.

About General Aviation News Staff

Comments

Just throwing money at something doesn’t make it safer. Why not just reduce their budget and really see if things get unsafe. If they don’t get unsafe then it was good that the budget was reduced. The bureau has pushed this “safety” idea for all it’s worth and beyond for too many years. We don’t need no ADSB or third class medicals – neither one makes anything safe.

I don’t find the comment about “…but rather for the sole purpose of saving money” jarring. I think another way to say it is that they are solely focused on cost and not value. Evaluating value is much more difficult. Congress doesn’t appear to be up to the task of evaluating value.

Hehe … only someone involved with government funding would conclude an argument with “… but rather for the sole purpose of saving money” as a bad thing. Sort of like saying “geez guys, all we’re doing here is saving money, why would we do *that*?!” I’m not suggesting sequestration is a good thing, just found this jarring.